Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#801  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 2:00 am

Is inferring design scientific or even rational? Let's just recap what Царь has to say about design, and how we can rationally infer it:


Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:When a system has components that inhibit its supposed purpose, or directly hamper its utility, that would not infer design. Quite the opposite.


What if an object was designed that way, or was degraded over time?


An object 'designed' to inhibit its own purpose. How then can we falsify presumed design of an object if it can be entirely non functional and still be deemed design? How do we even infer design in the first place if it is non-functioning?

Царь Славян wrote:Okay, but just to make it clear, I claim that you can't infer design from intentionality. Because you can't infer intentionality from an object.


You can't infer intentionality? Design IS intentionality. If you can't infer intentionality from an object, you can't infer design from an object.

Царь Славян wrote:Maybe somebody wanted to break it, maybe it was made broken, maybe it broke down over time.


Even an object that infers no design could still have been designed and its apparent design is lost due to being broken or worn down. Can you spell 'unfalsifiable'?

Царь Славян wrote:If it's functional it works. And even if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that it wasn't designed in the first place. Because you don't know the intention of teh designer. Maybe it was designed just that way. Maybe it serves some other purpose.


Non-functioning objects can still be designed. The reason design can be inferred is because you don't know the intention of the designer so it's possible that the designer intended it that way, yet in the last sentence you said that you can't use intention as an inferrence of the design in an object.

If you cannot infer intention, you cannot infer design. If no possible intention can be inferred for the purpose of the object, then it is not rational to infer to design, nor is it falsifiable.

Maybe it was just designed to not function. Non-falsifiable and not even remotely rational to infer design from it then. Again, inferring intent, which you said you couldn't do - seems like you want to infer intent when it is convenient, but reject it when it's not.

Maybe it serves some other purpose - inferring intent again, which you said is not inferrable from an object.

So, to recap this section. If you can infer intent from an object, it is plausible it is designed. If you cannot infer intent from an object, it is still plausible that it is designed. Ergo, inferring design by your metric is not scientific as there's never a means to falsify it. It's not rational, because your premise is your conclusion.

Царь Славян wrote:Things that are non-functional can also be designed. If someone made a computer that doesn't work, he made it just like that. And that non-functional computer is designed.


A designer that intentionally (there goes that intent that can't be inferred again) designs a non-functioning object? How then would you infer design if it is intentionally designed to look like it is not designed? Again, you are relying on the intent of the designer to make your claim about design, something you said was not your claim. Second, it's unfalsifiable - an object that has no appearance of design whatsoever can suddenly have design inferred because of the plausibility of a designer intending their design to look undesigned. You have gone way too far down the rabbit hole for this to remain even remotely rational.

Царь Славян wrote:No, that just means that YOUR „method“ is useless. It's your method that can't infer design not mine. I told you from the start that your method is useless, because design can be non-functional. And in order to infer design by your „method“ we would have to first infer intentions of the designer, which we can't do. Therefore, your „method“ is useless and should be discarded.


We can't infer intent from design, yet that's precisely what you have done throughout to reject my points. Ergo, the design hypothesis is a failure on 3 fronts. 1) It's non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. Under your claims, anything could be designed and we cannot reject the proposal of anything being designed because there's no means of inferring their design. 2) As there's no means of inferring their design, there's no reason to forward it as a valid hypothesis. 3) As the only way that the hypothesis works is to insert the conclusion into the premise, it's rationally inept.

Like I said Царь, you have single-handedly shown why a design hypothesis fails. You can't even maintain the appearance of a logical argument because the hypothesis is flawed and simply begs the question.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24391
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#802  Postby DogMendonça » Jan 21, 2011 2:14 am

Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
Last edited by DogMendonça on Jan 21, 2011 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DogMendonça
 
Posts: 12

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#803  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 2:14 am

Spearthrower wrote:Is inferring design scientific or even rational? Let's just recap what Царь has to say about design, and how we can rationally infer it:


Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:When a system has components that inhibit its supposed purpose, or directly hamper its utility, that would not infer design. Quite the opposite.


What if an object was designed that way, or was degraded over time?


An object 'designed' to inhibit its own purpose. How then can we falsify presumed design of an object if it can be entirely non functional and still be deemed design? How do we even infer design in the first place if it is non-functioning?

Царь Славян wrote:Okay, but just to make it clear, I claim that you can't infer design from intentionality. Because you can't infer intentionality from an object.


You can't infer intentionality? Design IS intentionality. If you can't infer intentionality from an object, you can't infer design from an object.

Царь Славян wrote:Maybe somebody wanted to break it, maybe it was made broken, maybe it broke down over time.


Even an object that infers no design could still have been designed and its apparent design is lost due to being broken or worn down. Can you spell 'unfalsifiable'?

Царь Славян wrote:If it's functional it works. And even if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that it wasn't designed in the first place. Because you don't know the intention of teh designer. Maybe it was designed just that way. Maybe it serves some other purpose.


Non-functioning objects can still be designed. The reason design can be inferred is because you don't know the intention of the designer so it's possible that the designer intended it that way, yet in the last sentence you said that you can't use intention as an inferrence of the design in an object.

If you cannot infer intention, you cannot infer design. If no possible intention can be inferred for the purpose of the object, then it is not rational to infer to design, nor is it falsifiable.

Maybe it was just designed to not function. Non-falsifiable and not even remotely rational to infer design from it then. Again, inferring intent, which you said you couldn't do - seems like you want to infer intent when it is convenient, but reject it when it's not.

Maybe it serves some other purpose - inferring intent again, which you said is not inferrable from an object.

So, to recap this section. If you can infer intent from an object, it is plausible it is designed. If you cannot infer intent from an object, it is still plausible that it is designed. Ergo, inferring design by your metric is not scientific as there's never a means to falsify it. It's not rational, because your premise is your conclusion.

Царь Славян wrote:Things that are non-functional can also be designed. If someone made a computer that doesn't work, he made it just like that. And that non-functional computer is designed.


A designer that intentionally (there goes that intent that can't be inferred again) designs a non-functioning object? How then would you infer design if it is intentionally designed to look like it is not designed? Again, you are relying on the intent of the designer to make your claim about design, something you said was not your claim. Second, it's unfalsifiable - an object that has no appearance of design whatsoever can suddenly have design inferred because of the plausibility of a designer intending their design to look undesigned. You have gone way too far down the rabbit hole for this to remain even remotely rational.

Царь Славян wrote:No, that just means that YOUR „method“ is useless. It's your method that can't infer design not mine. I told you from the start that your method is useless, because design can be non-functional. And in order to infer design by your „method“ we would have to first infer intentions of the designer, which we can't do. Therefore, your „method“ is useless and should be discarded.


We can't infer intent from design, yet that's precisely what you have done throughout to reject my points. Ergo, the design hypothesis is a failure on 3 fronts. 1) It's non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. Under your claims, anything could be designed and we cannot reject the proposal of anything being designed because there's no means of inferring their design. 2) As there's no means of inferring their design, there's no reason to forward it as a valid hypothesis. 3) As the only way that the hypothesis works is to insert the conclusion into the premise, it's rationally inept.

Like I said Царь, you have single-handedly shown why a design hypothesis fails. You can't even maintain the appearance of a logical argument because the hypothesis is flawed and simply begs the question.


Thanks, Spearthrower. Great post.

I really do think we're done here. Anything after this is just shooting the zombies.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#804  Postby DogMendonça » Jan 21, 2011 2:16 am

wait, i wan't to talk to this guy.
User avatar
DogMendonça
 
Posts: 12

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#805  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 2:40 am

Trolling fail.
Asking someone to elaborate his position is not trolling.

Language and reading comprehension fail.
Behe lost. You're backing a loser.

Trying to weasel out of it by whining about the semantic difference between a summary "not good enough" and a pedantic "don't address his points" is not getting you a win.

For those interested in the truth instead of Tsar's quibbling distortion, here's the relevant portion of the trial transcript. Behe's answers are the "A" sentences (in response to lawyers "Q").
Thanks for posting the whole transcription so that everyone can see I was right. Behe NEVER said that the articles were not good enough. He said precisely what I said that he said. Let me quote him.

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.


As we can clearly see, the first two things Behe said outright refute your calims that he said that the articles were not good enough. He said tha the articles were fine. But they do not addres his points. His points are about darwinian mechanism being able to go through a certain path and develop a certain structure. What the articles present is a possible pathway. Big difference. His point is that just because the pathway exists, that doesn't mean evolution actually took it. And even if it did, that doesn't mean that it was a darwinian mechanism that brought it through the pathway.

Evidence fail.

What you assert as legitimate without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
Pro-ID papers have been published in PR scientific journals. Therefore, it's legit.

Oh, you really do want a career in comedy, do you ? You're so cute when you try to be funny.

Do I look angry to you ?
No, but people like Dawkins do.

Trolling fail.
Asking for an explanation is not trolling.

Thank dog you've finally come to your senses and admitted the truth for once.

Yes, just because it can be described as designed doesn't mean it is designed. Yes, you finally comprehend. You've got it.

I think we're done here.
Actually that was my point from the start. If the universe can be described as an engineerd mechanism, then that means that design is a good scientific working hypothesis for certain features of teh universe. Thereofre ID is science.

Oops, I spoke too soon. No it's not a good starting position for a scientific inquiry because your IDiot heroes at the Dis-Institute have defined "design" in a way that makes it totally unfalsifiable and therefore totally unscientific.

Not that I expect you to understand.
There are two way to falsify design. Either show that a certain object can be accounted for by natural laws, or that it's probable enough to come about by chance. And teh design hypothesis for that object is falsified.

Trolling fail.
Asking questions is not trolling.

Just a friendly usage tip, Tsar. In normal English, quotes are both identical on top left and right, like "so". Your usage with the odd "bottom" quote mark - „machine“ - is a mistake in English. Surely you can learn to fix that bad habit without turning on the forbidden spell checker.
Yeah, but I can't be bothered...

What, wade through pages of your vomitous posts in the hope that you're not lying about the answer you claim to have put forth ?

You're joking, right ?

Please link or copy-paste your post where you provide the mathematic metric that demonstrates Mt. Rushmore is designed. No other math will do - not any of your vomit about how improbable the universe is, or any other garbage from you. Just exactly where you've provided a specific metric for design which shows that Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Or you could, you know, admit that you're lying about having done so before. And admit that you can't do it now.
I didn't say that I calculated anything for Mount Rushmore. I said that I have many times presented a method to infer design in general.
Last edited by Царь Славян on Jan 21, 2011 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#806  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 2:41 am

Tsar, you clearly don't get it. You pretend that you can infer design, but when pushed, you basically admit that nothing is impossible with regards to design, ergo, you cannot infer design.
No, it just means that we shouldn't infer design on what the designer would do. Which is what you proposed, and I said outright that that's wrong.

You alone have achieved precisely the same conclusion that others have arrived at - namely, the design hypothesis is neither scientific nor logical because it doesn't have a remit and is untestable.
No. We reached that your method is flawed, not mine. And the idea of a design hypothesis is scientific. Is it scientific to say that some archological find was designed? Obviously yes. Therefore, the design hypothesis is scientific.

The only question is how long it will take you to realise it.
Or for you to realize that your method is what is flawed.

An object 'designed' to inhibit its own purpose. How then can we falsify presumed design of an object if it can be entirely non functional and still be deemed design? How do we even infer design in the first place if it is non-functioning?
By deciding does it exhibit specified complexity. In otehr words, if the object conformas to an independently given pattern and is also improbable we can infer design.

You can't infer intentionality? Design IS intentionality. If you can't infer intentionality from an object, you can't infer design from an object.
But you can't infer what precisely the object that is designed, is designed FOR. And also, why it was designed.

Even an object that infers no design could still have been designed and its apparent design is lost due to being broken or worn down. Can you spell 'unfalsifiable'?
No, if we can't infer desgin, then we simply don't infer design. Which means that the design hypothesis for the object in question is falsified.

Non-functioning objects can still be designed. The reason design can be inferred is because you don't know the intention of the designer so it's possible that the designer intended it that way, yet in the last sentence you said that you can't use intention as an inferrence of the design in an object.
Exactly.

If you cannot infer intention, you cannot infer design. If no possible intention can be inferred for the purpose of the object, then it is not rational to infer to design, nor is it falsifiable.
Wrong. I can't infer intention, but I can infer design. Specified complexity is a reliable marker of design.

Maybe it was just designed to not function. Non-falsifiable and not even remotely rational to infer design from it then. Again, inferring intent, which you said you couldn't do - seems like you want to infer intent when it is convenient, but reject it when it's not.
No, I never said that I could infer intent in any case, just design. I can say that something is designed, but not why it was designed.

Maybe it serves some other purpose - inferring intent again, which you said is not inferrable from an object.
That's not inference! That's why I said MAYBE! If I don't say MAYBE then it would be inference. I didn't say that IT DOES serve another purpose, I said that MAYBE it does!

So, to recap this section. If you can infer intent from an object, it is plausible it is designed. If you cannot infer intent from an object, it is still plausible that it is designed. Ergo, inferring design by your metric is not scientific as there's never a means to falsify it. It's not rational, because your premise is your conclusion.
NO! That's YOUR metric, not mine! You are the one who proposed to infer design by intentionality, not me! I said from the start that that's flawed!

A designer that intentionally (there goes that intent that can't be inferred again) designs a non-functioning object? How then would you infer design if it is intentionally designed to look like it is not designed? Again, you are relying on the intent of the designer to make your claim about design, something you said was not your claim.
I wouldn't event take intentionality into the consideration! You bought it up in the first place, not me. I would use specified complexity which metntions no intentionality whatsoever.

Second, it's unfalsifiable - an object that has no appearance of design whatsoever can suddenly have design inferred because of the plausibility of a designer intending their design to look undesigned. You have gone way too far down the rabbit hole for this to remain even remotely rational.
No, that's your method. You brought up a method that you keep showing is flawed, and attributing it to me. I say that your method is flawed, and I'm not accepting it. My method is falsifiabel, becasue if an object whose design hypothesis is in question, can be shown to be accounted for by either natural law, or chance, then we do NOT infer design. Thus the design hypothesis for the said obejct is falsified.

We can't infer intent from design, yet that's precisely what you have done throughout to reject my points. Ergo, the design hypothesis is a failure on 3 fronts.
I didn't infer any intent I said it's impossible.

1) It's non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. Under your claims, anything could be designed and we cannot reject the proposal of anything being designed because there's no means of inferring their design.
Wrong. As I said before, either show that an object can be accounted for by natural laws or chance, and the design hypothesis is falsified.

2) As there's no means of inferring their design, there's no reason to forward it as a valid hypothesis.
Yes there is. A reliable marker of design is called Specified Complexity.

3) As the only way that the hypothesis works is to insert the conclusion into the premise, it's rationally inept.
Obviously not.

Like I said Царь, you have single-handedly shown why a design hypothesis fails. You can't even maintain the appearance of a logical argument because the hypothesis is flawed and simply begs the question.
No, what I hav shown is that YOUR method of infering design by intention is illogical and therefore flawed.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#807  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 2:42 am

DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#808  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 21, 2011 3:06 am

Царь Славян wrote:
DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.

ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing. And you can't cherry pick. In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works. As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and loo at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#809  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 3:16 am

ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.

In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
That's pretty much fine with me.

A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).
Okay, I agree. Is this supposed to be an argument against ID or something?

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works.
Really, how did you come to this conclusion?

As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.
I would disagree. I'd rather say that people who believe that they came from rocks are the ones who don't know much about biology.

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and loo at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
How do you know I haven't already done that? And maybe it is you, wishing to see evidence of having been brought about from a rock, that has this preconcieved ideas? Maybe people didn't come from rocks. Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#810  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 4:44 am

Царь Славян

It appears you have not considered what 'design' actually means, so perhaps you can be forgiven for forwarding an entirely specious argument due to not having considered it fully.

Let's have a look at what design means:

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&cl ... d=0CCEQkAE

Definitions of design on the Web:

* plan: make or work out a plan for; devise; "They contrived to murder their boss"; "design a new sales strategy"; "plan an attack"
* the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"
* plan something for a specific role or purpose or effect; "This room is not designed for work"
* an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests"
* create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner; "Chanel designed the famous suit"
* blueprint: something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt"
* make a design of; plan out in systematic, often graphic form; "design a better mousetrap"; "plan the new wing of the museum"
* a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"
* create designs; "Dupont designs for the house of Chanel"
* purpose: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"
* conceive or fashion in the mind; invent; "She designed a good excuse for not attending classes that day"
* a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"
* intend or have as a purpose; "She designed to go far in the world of business"
* invention: the creation of something in the mind
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Design is the planning that lays the basis for the making of every object or system. It can be used both as a noun and as a verb and, in a broader way, it means applied arts and engineering (See design disciplines below). ...



Absolutely every definition of design in the human language logically entails intention. Look at all those words: "plan", "devise", "conceive", "purpose", "intend".

To state that you cannot infer intention from an object is to state that you cannot infer design from an object.

Either that or language must be revised to conform to your argument.

You have absolutely destroyed the tenuous foundation on which design inference exists even before you have really thought about it. That's how weak the hypothesis is. It doesn't even resist logical prodding, it has no chance of ever being testable, ergo, it is not scientific.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24391
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#811  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 5:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:To state that you cannot infer intention from an object is to state that you cannot infer design from an object.
Non sequitur. If design exist, intention existed. But we don't actually have to know what exactly the designer intended todo, for us to infer design. If you find a super complicated device, made by super advance aliens, you would have no idea what it's for. You would not know their intention, but you could infer that the device is designed.

You have absolutely destroyed the tenuous foundation on which design inference exists even before you have really thought about it.
No, you keep repeating this but this is not ture. What I have destroyed is YOUR SUPPOSED design detection method that hinges upon intentionallity. My method does not.

That's how weak the hypothesis is. It doesn't even resist logical prodding, it has no chance of ever being testable, ergo, it is not scientific.
How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Natural laws and chance. If an object can be explained by any of those two then the design hypothesis is falsified. Those are the forces that can render a design hypothesis null and void. I said it at least three times already. Why are you pretending I didn't say it?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#812  Postby Rumraket » Jan 21, 2011 5:25 am

Царь Славян wrote:
ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

Flat out bold faced lie. ID is creationism in every possible way. Fuck, we even have the transitional forms in the books that were written after the 1987 courtcase that struck down creationism. Almost every single ID proponent, and certainly all of the founders of the ID movement and the members of the ID-"thinktank" The Discovery Institute have openly admitted to religious motivations.

Just because you invent a new label and attempt to avoid naming who's doing the designing doesn't mean we suddenly forget the history of the ID movement. Noone is fooled. It's Creationism, deal with it.

And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.

Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.

Where did your intellectual honesty go? Ahh now I remember you never did bring it .... :whistle:

In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
That's pretty much fine with me.

A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).
Okay, I agree. Is this supposed to be an argument against ID or something?

It's simply obvious that you have no clue how changes can result in phenotypic and morphological change. Especially your complete lack of understanding of proteins have been made explicit for all to see in this thread. Your consistent handwaving at all the papers presented that shot down your assertions testify this fact quite convincingly.

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works.
Really, how did you come to this conclusion?

I guess he read this thread.

As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.
I would disagree. I'd rather say that people who believe that they came from rocks are the ones who don't know much about biology.

Says the guy who once again equivocated a horribly oversimplified Abiogenesis with Darwinian Evolution. :whistle:

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and loo at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
How do you know I haven't already done that? And maybe it is you, wishing to see evidence of having been brought about from a rock, that has this preconcieved ideas? Maybe people didn't come from rocks. Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?

There you go with your "from rocks" nonsense again, equivocating Abiogenesis with Evolution through mutation and natural selection.

Funny how people who think a magic, nonphysical wizard-mind (who loves you), existing in the absense of a brain (becase we have so much evidence of minds doing that, right?), outside of space and time, somehow could spontaneously create the entirety of extant biodiversity OUT OF DIRT(or clay), simply by wishing it into existence. Funny how these same people who claim they look with awe and marvel at the wonders of nature, apparently do not have the capacity to imagine that their supposed magic man could have chosen other methods of creation than the SPONTANEOUS OUT OF NOWHERE kind.

Fuck all that, it's better to believe in ancient texts, in the face of the evidence, written by misogynistic desert goat-herders at the infancy of civilization than to actually pay attention to the physical reality that would supposedly, by their own beliefs and claims, be the product of their space-wizard.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13142
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#813  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 5:26 am

Царь Славян wrote:
ID is just creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing.
ID has no creation story, therefore it's not creationism.

Lying again. Tsk tsk. God doesn't like you when you lie.
And you can't cherry pick.
Depends no what's to be picked.
Nope. You're doing illegitimate cherry picking just like all the lying cdesignproponentsists at your beloved Dis-Institute. You can't weasel your way out of it by implying your cherry-picking might be legitimate because you are somehow a special case.

In biological evolution, there are four main processes: natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection and migration. Evolution is about the change in gene frequencies over time.
That's pretty much fine with me.
Dog, twice today you've said something rational. Are you trying to set a new record ? Good for you !

A apparently small genetic change can lead to large differences in morphology, biochemistry, physiology, behavior etc. Sometimes, a significant amount of genetic change can lead to relatively little change in phenotype. It all depends on the nature of the genetic change. For example, there are many isopmorphs of a protein that can do the same job, so different organisms can have a diverse DNA sequences and a different amino acid sequence, and yet in many cases, the protein or enzyme may work the same or in a similar manner.
Changes in signaling regulatory genes [or even some Genetic Regulatory Networks or pathways] can lead to profound changes in morphology at any level. Within species, for example, you can have size polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and specialization of castes, such as in the social hymenoptera.

In development, the embryo's four dimensional geometry changes according to the expression of homeobox genes and other transcription factors. These Genetic Regulatory Networks are both highly conserved in the early-expressed traits, and evolvable in the later expressed traits. (Davidson, 2006).
Okay, I agree. Is this supposed to be an argument against ID or something
:whistle:

It is quite clear that your knowledge of biology is totally inadequate for you to make even a basic assessment of how biology works.
Really, how did you come to this conclusion?
Trolling fail.

As a consequence people like you are vulnerable to any crackpot pseudo-explanation that comes along.
I would disagree. I'd rather say that people who believe that they came from rocks are the ones who don't know much about biology.
Lying again. So sad. Even if you believe in design or creationism, you still believe you were created from rocks - that is, from "dust" according to one of those chapters, or from some other previously inanimate material that was given form or shaped or influenced or whatever into life by the creator or designer or whatever the hell you call it. First, there was no life. Everyone can agree on that unless you are crazy enough to think life has existed eternally unchanged. Then at some unspecified time later, there was life, although it wasn't exactly like the life we now recognize everywhere on our planet. That's "life from rocks" as a convenient shorthand, or life from dust if you insist. To quibble about it just makes you look bizarre.

Unless you can put aside your pre-conceived ideas and look at the evidence objectively [with no thought as to whether or not you like the conclusions or implications], then you have no hope of ever gaining even a basic understanding of science or nature.
How do you know I haven't already done that? And maybe it is you, wishing to see evidence of having been brought about from a rock, that has this preconcieved ideas?

Trolling fail.

Maybe people didn't come from rocks.

Of course people don't come from rocks, what a stupid idea. People come from the stork, didn't you know ? :lol:

Did that ever cross your mind? Maybe you should drop your beliefs about people coming from rocks and look at biology objectively?
So, tell us, Tsar, what's your "objective" answer to where people come from ? You know, biologically speaking ? You can skip the sex talk - I'm pretty sure all of us know about penises and sperm and egg fertilization and all that. I'm more interested in what you think is the biological answer for the origin of the human species. Since you're such an expert in biology all of a sudden, maybe you would be so kind as to share your fabulous knowledge with us.

Do I have to say please, pretty please with sugar on it ?
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#814  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 5:29 am

Царь Славян wrote:
DogMendonça wrote:Царь Славян

Are you a creationist?
If so, why? Did it came after or before religious belief?
I'm not a creationist. I'm an ID proponent. Why? Becasue that's the best current explanation for certain features in nature.Because that's the explanation that sounds "sciencey" and impresses the ignorant rubes and brainwashed followers of the professional conman Dembski, who hooked me along with so many others.


Fixed it for you.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#815  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 5:39 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:To state that you cannot infer intention from an object is to state that you cannot infer design from an object.
Non sequitur. If design exist, intention existed. But we don't actually have to know what exactly the designer intended todo, for us to infer design. If you find a super complicated device, made by super advance aliens, you would have no idea what it's for. You would not know their intention, but you could infer that the device is designed.

You have absolutely destroyed the tenuous foundation on which design inference exists even before you have really thought about it.
No, you keep repeating this but this is not ture. What I have destroyed is YOUR SUPPOSED design detection method that hinges upon intentionallity. My method does not.


Oh, that's hilarious. Your method hinges on finding a "super complicated device made by super advance aliens" - and from something about the supercomplicatedness you're going to infer design WITHOUT inferring that the super advance aliens had SOME intention when they created the supercomplicatedness, even if we aren't able to know EXACTLY what that intention was at the time ?

Oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ahhh, ahh, ha, you make me laugh so hard my sides hurt.

Do you listen to yourself ? Do you practice your comedy act in front of a mirror ?

That's how weak the hypothesis is. It doesn't even resist logical prodding, it has no chance of ever being testable, ergo, it is not scientific.
How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Natural laws and chance. If an object can be explained by any of those two then the design hypothesis is falsified. Those are the forces that can render a design hypothesis null and void. I said it at least three times already. Why are you pretending I didn't say it?

No one's pretending that you didn't say it, we've just been politely ignoring the stench of your wrongness and trying to give you a chance to wake up to what falsifiability really means. Why don't you go do a little studying and come back when you actually understand falsifiability. Then we won't have to politely pretend that you aren't dropping little turds into this conversation.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#816  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 5:57 am

Lying again. Tsk tsk. God doesn't like you when you lie.
Show me the creations story of ID.

Nope. You're doing illegitimate cherry picking just like all the lying cdesignproponentsists at your beloved Dis-Institute. You can't weasel your way out of it by implying your cherry-picking might be legitimate because you are somehow a special case.
What if we have cherries to be picked?

Lying again. So sad. Even if you believe in design or creationism, you still believe you were created from rocks - that is, from "dust" according to one of those chapters, or from some other previously inanimate material that was given form or shaped or influenced or whatever into life by the creator or designer or whatever the hell you call it. First, there was no life. Everyone can agree on that unless you are crazy enough to think life has existed eternally unchanged. Then at some unspecified time later, there was life, although it wasn't exactly like the life we now recognize everywhere on our planet. That's "life from rocks" as a convenient shorthand, or life from dust if you insist. To quibble about it just makes you look bizarre.
But there is a difference between being intelligently created from pre-existing material and spontaneous generation. One is possible, the other is not. Computers get designed from pre-existing material, they don't spontaneously form from them. No, not even over millions of years.

Of course people don't come from rocks, what a stupid idea. People come from the stork, didn't you know ?
So you don't accept abiogenesis?

So, tell us, Tsar, what's your "objective" answer to where people come from ? You know, biologically speaking ? You can skip the sex talk - I'm pretty sure all of us know about penises and sperm and egg fertilization and all that. I'm more interested in what you think is the biological answer for the origin of the human species. Since you're such an expert in biology all of a sudden, maybe you would be so kind as to share your fabulous knowledge with us.
People were probably designed by some intelligent agent some time ago. It's unknown by whome, where, when or how...

Oh, that's hilarious. Your method hinges on finding a "super complicated device made by super advance aliens" - and from something about the supercomplicatedness you're going to infer design WITHOUT inferring that the super advance aliens had SOME intention when they created the supercomplicatedness, even if we aren't able to know EXACTLY what that intention was at the time ?
Yeah, we don't need to know the intention.


No one's pretending that you didn't say it, we've just been politely ignoring the stench of your wrongness and trying to give you a chance to wake up to what falsifiability really means.
Well then, please to say what falsifiability is, and why does is my answer wrong.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#817  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 5:58 am

Flat out bold faced lie. ID is creationism in every possible way. Fuck, we even have the transitional forms in the books that were written after the 1987 courtcase that struck down creationism. Almost every single ID proponent, and certainly all of the founders of the ID movement and the members of the ID-"thinktank" The Discovery Institute have openly admitted to religious motivations.

Just because you invent a new label and attempt to avoid naming who's doing the designing doesn't mean we suddenly forget the history of the ID movement. Noone is fooled. It's Creationism, deal with it.
Derive the creation story from the main ID postulates and compare it to any other form of creationism and let's see if it's the same.

Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.
I didn't say data. I said it edpends on WHAT is going to be picked. If we are going to be picking cherries, then yeah, I'll cherrypick...

It's simply obvious that you have no clue how changes can result in phenotypic and morphological change.
You base this assertation on?

Especially your complete lack of understanding of proteins have been made explicit for all to see in this thread.
Cite us all an example.

Your consistent handwaving at all the papers presented that shot down your assertions testify this fact quite convincingly.
What exactly did I handwave?

I guess he read this thread.
That doesn't explain how he came to that conclusion.

Says the guy who once again equivocated a horribly oversimplified Abiogenesis with Darwinian Evolution.
I don't remember saying that abiogenesis = evolution.

There you go with your "from rocks" nonsense again, equivocating Abiogenesis with Evolution through mutation and natural selection.
No, I'm not equivocation anything. I'm just combining those two flawed ideas and presenting your creation story to you.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#818  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 6:17 am

Царь Славян wrote:

Language and reading comprehension fail.
Behe lost. You're backing a loser.

Trying to weasel out of it by whining about the semantic difference between a summary "not good enough" and a pedantic "don't address his points" is not getting you a win.

For those interested in the truth instead of Tsar's quibbling distortion, here's the relevant portion of the trial transcript. Behe's answers are the "A" sentences (in response to lawyers "Q").
Thanks for posting the whole transcription so that everyone can see I was right. Behe NEVER said that the articles were not good enough. He said precisely what I said that he said.

Just like I predicted, you return to whine about the semantic difference between the casual summary "not good enough" and a pedantic dissection of a page of testimony where Behe's "they didn't answer the question the way I insist it be answered or I'll hold my breath and turn blue", funnily enough, turns out to be basically the same as the already mentioned "not good enough".

But everyone besides you already understood that. Do try to catch up, Tsar.

Let me quote him.

Why bother. Since you don't understand the point to begin with, your choice quotations aren't going to help you get a win out of the loser Behe.


<snip the quotes from sack of shit Behe which Tsar think support his desire to win at any cost


As we can clearly see, the first two things Behe said outright refute your calims that he said that the articles were not good enough. He said tha the articles were fine. But they do not addres his points. His points are about darwinian mechanism being able to go through a certain path and develop a certain structure.
Umm-hmm. Just keep digging, Tsar.

What the articles present is a possible pathway. Big difference.

He SHOOTS. He SCORES ! But, but, but, he shot into the wrong goal. He's scored an OWN GOAL !!

I've never seen a better example of total idiocy of the ID view on display. Yes, the articles present a POSSIBLE PATHWAY. What the fuck do we need other than a possible pathway to totally refute your crazy claim that natural selection (Darwinian mechanism) could not have "created" such a "complicated" structure. We've got it. We've got 50+ scientific peer-reviewed journal articles detailing the possible pathway. And you're left with nothing. Less than nothing, because you just scored a point against your own team. Good going, Tsar.

His point is that just because the pathway exists, that doesn't mean evolution actually took it.
Naughty, naughty, trying to move the goal posts. Doesn't work after you just scored that own goal.

And even if it did, that doesn't mean that it was a darwinian mechanism that brought it through the pathway.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
NO, that's where your invisible immaterial unspecified incomprehensible "designer" reached into the DNA with its ghostly fingers and twiddled the base pairs to get the "intended" result. Sure thing, Tsar. Keep trying to defend the indefensible.

Pro-ID papers have been published in PR scientific journals. Therefore, it's legit.

That's a flat out lie. No pro-ID papers have been published in legitimate biology journals. The papers which Dembski claims are pro-ID, aren't; they're just neutral mathematical/computer modeling reviews which don't actually mention ID, much less support it in print. The papers which you claim, aren't in legitimate biology journals and are reviewed by liars-for-Jesus on the editorial board.
ID can't be legit, as Spearthrower already proved, because people like you insist on making it unfalsifiable. Good "design" ? Cool, the "designer" wanted it that way. Bad "design" ? No problem, the "designer" wanted it that way. That's not legitimate science, that's not any kind of science, that's idiocy in action.

No, but people like Dawkins do.

That's a lie. That one's not your fault, though, so I forgive you - the asshole religious media is full of descriptions of the angry atheist - like Dawkins - when in reality he is the nicest, most polite, cheerful and helpful old man we could ever want to meet.

Asking for an explanation is not trolling.
Trolling fail again.

IF you actually were honestly asking for an explanation, and you actually intended to get your fingers out of your ears long enough to listen to the explanation you got, well, then maybe you'd have a case for it not being trolling.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thank dog you've finally come to your senses and admitted the truth for once.

Yes, just because it can be described as designed doesn't mean it is designed. Yes, you finally comprehend. You've got it.

I think we're done here.
Actually that was my point from the start. If the universe can be described as an engineerd mechanism,
You can describe it AS an engineered mechanism - or you can describe it AS a very very special creation of a very very special god - or you can describe it AS a natural outcome of physics operating after some specific initial condistions -- the only thing that matters is what you've got a legitimate model and evidence for.
then that means that design is a good scientific working hypothesis for certain features of teh universe.
Aaa-a-a-nd Tsar falls off the logic cliff yet again.

It's not a scientific working hypothesis, because it's compatible with all imaginable features of the universe. Good features ? Cool, the "engineer" wanted it that way. Bad features ? No problem, the "engineer" wanted it that way. It's unfalsifiable. It doesn't lead to a testable model, it doesn't make any testable predictions.
Thereofre ID is science.
Lie. Again.

Oops, I spoke too soon. No it's not a good starting position for a scientific inquiry because your IDiot heroes at the Dis-Institute have defined "design" in a way that makes it totally unfalsifiable and therefore totally unscientific.

Not that I expect you to understand.
There are two way to falsify design. Either show that a certain object can be accounted for by natural laws, or that it's probable enough to come about by chance. And teh design hypothesis for that object is falsified.
Wrong again. Would you like to have your wrongness here explained one more time ? How many more times do you guess it will take before you finally get it ? Do you think you need to go away and study for a month, or will just a few days suffice ?

Trolling fail.
Asking questions is not trolling.
:whine: As, Tsar, you're so cute when you pretend not to understand.

Just a friendly usage tip, Tsar. In normal English, quotes are both identical on top left and right, like "so". Your usage with the odd "bottom" quote mark - „machine“ - is a mistake in English. Surely you can learn to fix that bad habit without turning on the forbidden spell checker.
Yeah, but I can't be bothered...
Shows how seriously we should take your "argument" when you don't even take yourself seriously enough to bother ... Tell me, Tsar, since you don't care what you say or how you say it, why should anyone else care what you say ? Hmm ?

What, wade through pages of your vomitous posts in the hope that you're not lying about the answer you claim to have put forth ?

You're joking, right ?

Please link or copy-paste your post where you provide the mathematic metric that demonstrates Mt. Rushmore is designed. No other math will do - not any of your vomit about how improbable the universe is, or any other garbage from you. Just exactly where you've provided a specific metric for design which shows that Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Or you could, you know, admit that you're lying about having done so before. And admit that you can't do it now.
I didn't say that I calculated anything for Mount Rushmore. I said that I have many times presented a method to infer design in general.
[/quote]Thank you so much for admitting that you were lying before when you said that you had already answered the question about Rushmore. It means a lot to see you 'fessing up.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#819  Postby hackenslash » Jan 21, 2011 6:31 am

Царь Славян wrote:
The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563


You're equivocating. In any event, GFL would not disagree with me. In that post, he is answering your question regarding why they are called molecular machines by some. I suggest that those who called it such are being less than completely rigorous, probably because they aren't accustomed to having their words twisted by dishonest, credulous people with a dishonest agenda such as yourself. It's much akin to physicists calling entropy 'disorder'. They expect to be better understood.

Anyhoo, as commonly understood, a machine is an artefact, by definition, while the flagellum evolved from an earlier system. Why you keep resting on the flagellum is, in fact, beyond me, because Behe's ignorant guff regarding it has been comprehensively nailed to the wall some time ago, especially the 'irreducible complexity' canard which, even if it were actually true, wouldn't constitute a problem for evolution, because irreducible complexity is a necessary outcome of evolution, as demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller some 50 years before Behe was even born.

Perhaps if you actually learned some science.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21386
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#820  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 6:32 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.
I didn't say data. I said it edpends on WHAT is going to be picked. If we are going to be picking cherries, then yeah, I'll cherrypick...

So now you are admitting that you are just here to quotemine, distort, and deliberately misunderstand so you can misrepresent. Picking cherries, your ass.

Good job, Tsar. You're finished now - you can go whenever you wish.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest